The New Testament
- Thread starter Arditezza
- Start date
No, I'm asking because there are significant differences between the two texts. I am asking because there are different meanings, and since the New Testament is the basis for an entire religion, it should hold that the truer of the two documents should be the guide. If one is simply a translation, than it can be regarded as less of the word of God, than the original text that is not translated. It's important to answer because it's possible that one exists on the pure dogma of some greek transcribers, and is heavily influenced by fallible human religious pontiffs.
Do you even know about the Khaburis Manuscript and the Septuagint? Or are you just stabbing in the dark?
Do you even know about the Khaburis Manuscript and the Septuagint? Or are you just stabbing in the dark?
camphlps: Jesus means Messiah, so any religion could use that name...but im only guessing this is why you post this.
*************
M*W: "Jesus" does not mean "Messiah." Jesus was a common name, but most likely the Jesus you are referring to was called Y'shua bar Miriam. "Christos" is Greek for the Jewish word "Messiah." Either word, "Christos" or "Messiah" simply means "anointed." This is what Mary Magdalene did to Jesus, "anoint" him with her special blend of oils. Jesus would NOT HAVE BEEN anointed or referred to as the Messiah had Mary Magdalene overlooked anointing him.
People have butchered Jesus' name for 2,000 years now. They've given him a first "Jesus" and a last name "Christ." But this was not his name. At best, it was a title. Again, he wouldn't have had this title had it not been for Mary Magdalene anointing him. I could go further into the anointing, but it would involve intimate sexual details that I don't think you could comprehend. Christians claim to be followers of the Messiah. Unfortunately, the true definition of the Messiah has long been lost and replaced by Christians to mean the dying demigod savior they believe to be Y'shua bar Miriam.
The Hebrew word for anointing signifies the coronation of an Earthly king. There have been many kings of Israel who were anointed with oil which symbolized their entry into kingship. The "anointing" of the future kings of Israel was used to designate a royal leader from the House of David. The title of "Messiah" was a well-known term for a leader-king.
According to the Bible, only God can annoint future Earthly kings. In Jesus' case, it was Mary Magdalene who anointed him. This brings up three points: 1) If Jesus was anointed by God, he couldn't have been God or he could have anointed himself; 2) Mary Magdalene anointed Jesus, and that doesn't make him an Earthly king or God; and 3) If Jesus were not God, and Mary Magdalene anointed him, then Mary Magdalene must be God -- or, maybe there is no god!
*************
M*W: "Jesus" does not mean "Messiah." Jesus was a common name, but most likely the Jesus you are referring to was called Y'shua bar Miriam. "Christos" is Greek for the Jewish word "Messiah." Either word, "Christos" or "Messiah" simply means "anointed." This is what Mary Magdalene did to Jesus, "anoint" him with her special blend of oils. Jesus would NOT HAVE BEEN anointed or referred to as the Messiah had Mary Magdalene overlooked anointing him.
People have butchered Jesus' name for 2,000 years now. They've given him a first "Jesus" and a last name "Christ." But this was not his name. At best, it was a title. Again, he wouldn't have had this title had it not been for Mary Magdalene anointing him. I could go further into the anointing, but it would involve intimate sexual details that I don't think you could comprehend. Christians claim to be followers of the Messiah. Unfortunately, the true definition of the Messiah has long been lost and replaced by Christians to mean the dying demigod savior they believe to be Y'shua bar Miriam.
The Hebrew word for anointing signifies the coronation of an Earthly king. There have been many kings of Israel who were anointed with oil which symbolized their entry into kingship. The "anointing" of the future kings of Israel was used to designate a royal leader from the House of David. The title of "Messiah" was a well-known term for a leader-king.
According to the Bible, only God can annoint future Earthly kings. In Jesus' case, it was Mary Magdalene who anointed him. This brings up three points: 1) If Jesus was anointed by God, he couldn't have been God or he could have anointed himself; 2) Mary Magdalene anointed Jesus, and that doesn't make him an Earthly king or God; and 3) If Jesus were not God, and Mary Magdalene anointed him, then Mary Magdalene must be God -- or, maybe there is no god!
Neither the Septuagint nor the aramaic text are the original language. Even the text in the original source language is likely to have differences, so I think your point is invalid. Who is to believe that the Septuagint wasn't translated from a different tree of the hebrew source?
I did a little research, however, and found that the Khabruris, supposively, is the New Testament. How are comparing the Septuagint, a collection of OT books, with an Aramaic NT?
I did a little research, however, and found that the Khabruris, supposively, is the New Testament. How are comparing the Septuagint, a collection of OT books, with an Aramaic NT?
Well, you are incorrect. The Septuagint is the collection of Codexes, written in Greek that make up the New Testament as most Christian bibles are translated from. The Khaburis Manuscript is also the New Testament, written around 165 A.D. and written in Aramaic, not greek. Western scholors are of the school that the original New Testament was written in greek, while Eastern scholors are of the belief that the original is the Aramaic version. Matthew, would have spoken and written his gospel in Aramaic if he did indeed write it, as it was his native tongue. However, Christians hold the dogma that somehow, it was written in Greek and not Aramaic. I've gotten the response that none of the books of the New Testament were actually written by any of the supposed authors the books are named after, and none of the books were written by any witnesses to the actual events of Jesus's life. If that holds true, then how is any of it accurate? I am looking for clarification from someone who is not guessing and actually has studied the information I am speaking of.
Arditezza, I am correct. The Septuagint is the hebrew Old Testament, translated in Alexandria before Christ. And except for the book of Matthew, I know of no other book of the NT that is seriously debated as to whether or not it was written first in Greek. The authorship of most of the books were written to a Greek audience, almost all of the OT quotations are from the Septuagint.
But there's still room for theories that Christ's words were written first in Aramaic, then used as a source text for the authors of the NT. I'm not sure of what you mean by "eastern." Some of the Orthodox churches use the Peshita, but the Peshita is not the Khaburis codex.
anonymous2
Registered Senior Member
okinrus said:
Where are extant versions of the Septuagint? Just the Septuagint. Just the ancient Greek OT written pre-Jesus. Do they exist? There are old Greek versions of the "Bible" (including some/all? of the NT), but are there old Greek versions of only the OT?
When we moderns refer to what the "Septuagint" says, aren't we just quoting from old Greek Bibles? If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. If you could direct me to a verified Septuagint, Greek only Old Testament, I'd like to see it. Not a relatively modern compliation, but an ancient one, of only the OT in Greek which is called the "Septuagint".
This may be why Arditezza doesn't really see a distinction between the "Septuagint" and ancient Greek Bibles, because aren't modern constructions of the "Septuagint" in fact taken from ancient Greek Bibles?
Like I said, I could be wrong. So this is why I'm asking.
I think there are copies in the Vatican and the Orthodox church. But the book is well-quoted by the Bible and the Church Father's. Maybe even earlier greek Jews before Christ quoted from the book.
No, not the original Septuagint. Before Jesus we only have the dead sea scrolls and possibly fragments of the Old Testament.
Yes, the Septuagint is a Greek Translation. Not of only the canonical OT of either Jews, Protestants, and Catholics: there are some other books. The Septuagint is, however, used by the Orthodox Church.
http://septuagint.org/LXX/
She might be reading from a bad site or something.... The story goes that 70 scribes translated the Hebrew text, thereby forming the Septuagint. But not every collection of the Septuagint, I believe, had the same number of books. So I think what was meant by the word Septuagint was simply the laws of Moses, the later prophets, and maybe other books thrown in.
anonymous2
Registered Senior Member
okinrus said:
What I mean is, what is the "official" Septuagint? Greek Orthodox may say they use "the Septuagint", but what exactly is the manuscript source? This group doesn't seem very fond of the "Septuagint"-http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/septuagint_-_intro.htm.
There are old versions of the Old Testament, but I don't think they totally agree with each other. What is THE Septuagint? A certain book? A conflated text based on old Greek Bibles which is then called "the" Septuagint? Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, these are 3 old "Greek" Bibles from my understanding. But do their "OT" parts totally agree with each other? I don't think so.
Last edited:
Phenomenal Internet resource, the Unbound Bible. This link discusses the languages in which the Bible is available on that site, which includes many ancient versions.
http://unbound.biola.edu/index.cfm?fuseaction=versions&lang=English
http://unbound.biola.edu/index.cfm?fuseaction=versions&lang=English
Your site is inaccurate. All of the greek early christians, from Justin Marytr to Jerome, used the Septuagint, even refering to it by name.
Despite being unrelated to the Orthodox church, Catholics never banned anyone from reading the Bible. They perhaps banned Catholics from reading a heretical translation, but this simply was a different thing.
Second, the textus receptus was produced by Erasmus, a Catholic, before the Protesants revolution. The KJV was Protestant translation into english of the textus receptus.
Now a fuller argument concerning the authencity of the Septuagint, I think, can be found by comparing quotations of Jewish rabbis, such as Philo of Alexandria, with the copies of the Septuagint we have today. I have not done this. But, still, I know of signficant evidence for the Septuagint, that we have today, to be genuine. There are well known quotations from Jewish rabbis that the Septuagint translation, while faithful, did not entirely convey th hebrew original. There are early writings, such as Irenaeus and Matthew that tell us that the Septuagint translated Almah to virgin. Origen even produced a book, I believe lost, comparing the Septuagint with the hebrew text. All of this historical evidence suggests that the Septuagint we have is authentic.
Those 3, I believe, are of the NT. The Septuagint was the widely used by greek hebrew's both before Christ and after Christ in the early years. Altogether the Septuagint--what we have--has been preserved faithfully.
I don't think they do, not in every place. A lot of errors, however, are able to be corrected by experts. For instance, if a scribe misses a word or two, a scholar, with comparison of the different manuscripts, can correct these errors. Almost all copying of large works by hand produces errors, which are not found until comparison with another copy. These errors can build up, but, when hearing 6000 or so differences between two documents, one wonders how signficant the differences are? But also understand that any comparison of a old testament with the Septuagint will be a comparison of two books in two different languages. There might be slight differences in the way hebrew is translated; the connotation of the words used 2000 years ago and now might be different; even the understanding of signficant passages, such as Isaiah's almah/virgin prophesy, might be different. But none of these reasons reflect on whether the underlying text is correct or not.
anonymous2
Registered Senior Member
okinrus said:
Yea, but where IS the "Septuagint"? As an ancient, single book of OT scriptures translated into Greek? Simply having an ancient greek Bible and calling its OT translation the "Septuagint" is not convincing.
Origen seemed to think the "Septuagint", at least in his day, was corrupt:Again, through the whole of Job there are many passages in the Hebrew which are wanting in our copies, generally four or five verses, but sometimes, however, even fourteen, and nineteen, and sixteen. But why should I enumerate all the instances I collected with so much labour, to prove that the difference between our copies and those of the Jews did not escape me? In Jeremiah I noticed many instances, and indeed in that book I found much transposition and variation in the readings of the prophecies. Again, in Genesis, the words, "God saw that it was good," when the firmament was made, are not found in the Hebrew, and there is no small dispute among them about this; and other instances are to be found in Genesis, which I marked, for the sake of distinction, with the sign the Greeks call an obelisk, as on the other hand I marked with an asterisk those passages in our copies which are not found in the Hebrew. What needs there to speak of Exodus, where there is such diversity in what is said about the tabernacle and its court, and the ark, and the garments of the high priest and the priests, that sometimes the meaning even does not seem to be akin? And, forsooth, when we notice such things, we are forthwith to reject as spurious the copies in use in our Churches, and enjoin the brotherhood to put away the sacred books current among them, and to coax the Jews, and persuade them to give us copies which shall be untampered with, and free from forgery! (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-04/anf04-51.htm)
Although I would need to research the exact reference, some Jews claim that there were a few passages which the Talmud records the translation, and the present day "Septuagint" does not correspond. Of course, one could claim that Talmud is wrong if one wishes. Also, concerning the "parthenos" question, not everyone beileves the whole "Hebrew Bible" was an authorized translation. Some Jews say the authorized translation that was done was ONLY of the Pentateuch, and was done under the threat of death, and wasn't even translated literally to try to prevent people from misconstruing it (which didn't work in their view). Who knows exactly when, and by whom, the other books were translated? Even the Catholic Encyclopedia states:
St. Jerome (Comment. in Mich.) says: "Josephus writes, and the Hebrews inform us, that only the five books of Moses were translated by them (seventy-two), and given to King Ptolemy." Besides, the versions of the various books of the Old Testament differ so much in vocabulary, style, form, and character, sometimes free and sometimes extremely literal, that they could not be the work of the same translators. Nevertheless, in spite of these divergencies the name of the Septuagint Version is universally given to the entire collection of the Old Testament books in the Greek Bible adopted by the Eastern Church. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm)
Jerome is also quoted as saying:
But I was stimulated to undertake the task by the zeal of Origen, who blended with the old edition Theodotion's translation and used throughout the work as distinguishing marks the asterisk * and the obelus, that is the star and the spit, the first of which makes what had previously been defective to beam with light, while the other transfixes and slaughters all that was superfluous.(http://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF2-03/Jerome/vsRufinus/t132.htm)
So Jerome said Origen had already blended with the old edition (Septuagint?) Theodotion's translation.
That does not engender confidence in me that the "Septuagint" (whichever Greek OT one wishes to accept) is the same as the early Greek translations of Hebrew scriptures. Of course, these "church father" writings could themselves be suspect, so.
Last edited:
I double checked the meaning behind the Vaticanus and the other codexes you posted. These codexes include the Septuagint. Yes, the Septuagint did not entirely conform to the hebrew text, but it nevertheless is faithful translation, owing to the times of the day.
St. Jerome may have been a bit biased, having produced a translation of the Old Testament from using hebrew copies. St. Augustine, I think, thought that the Septuagint should have been used for the translation.
Also, the claim that the Septuagint only contained five-books, I think, is unreliable, and most likely the result of overly reliance on the legend of how the Septuagint was created. Because the legend of how the Septuagint was created is unlikely to be true, there's no reason to rely on the Septuagint being only 5 books.
Now the site you posted claimed, however, that the Septuagint was nonexistent. We certainly have proof that existed at the time of Christ and the time after.
Not sure? The Talmud was written down in hebrew, correct?
My apologies, the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Alexandrinus are the translations I was speaking of in regards to the Khaburis Manuscript. Not only are the codexes incomplete and full of errors, they also differ in the number of books, and even number of verses they contain. The Codexes were written around 400-600 A.D., in Greek. The Khaburis Manuscript is internally dated 165 A.D., and certified by a bishop (who was later discommunicated from the church). The copy of the Khaburis Manuscript that was recovered in what is now Mosul, Iraq in the 1970's was carbon dated to the year 1000 A.D. The books are roughly the same, the verses are roughly the same but the translations are very different. The meanings are therefore different.
The question is; because there are different meanings, and since the New Testament is the basis for an entire religion, it should hold that the truer of the two documents should be the guide. If one is simply a translation, than it can be regarded as less of the word of God, than the original text that is not translated. It's important to answer because it's possible that one exists on the pure dogma of some greek transcribers, and is heavily influenced by fallible human religious pontiffs. If those who resided over the church, at the time of the writings and revisions altered the book in any way from it's original form, is not the word of God used from the Greek translations just the word of man?
The question is; because there are different meanings, and since the New Testament is the basis for an entire religion, it should hold that the truer of the two documents should be the guide. If one is simply a translation, than it can be regarded as less of the word of God, than the original text that is not translated. It's important to answer because it's possible that one exists on the pure dogma of some greek transcribers, and is heavily influenced by fallible human religious pontiffs. If those who resided over the church, at the time of the writings and revisions altered the book in any way from it's original form, is not the word of God used from the Greek translations just the word of man?
I'm still uncertain how the Khaburis manuscript is dated at 165 A.D when the only surviving copy is from 1000 A.D. That would mean that for approximately 800 years the document was copied and recopied. If the Khaburis is from 165 A.d, it's likely there would be other documents similar to it. Furthermore, if the Khaburis has drastic differences from our Bible, then the document could be from a heretical sect.
As to the answer of your next question, what is meant by "word of God" is that God influenced and inspired the writers; it does not mean that God wrote each and every sentence. In other words, the text is only good for teaching when it is interpreted correctly. Even an unclear passage, when viewed with entire text in perspective, will teach both valid doctrine and valid morals.
As to the answer of your next question, what is meant by "word of God" is that God influenced and inspired the writers; it does not mean that God wrote each and every sentence. In other words, the text is only good for teaching when it is interpreted correctly. Even an unclear passage, when viewed with entire text in perspective, will teach both valid doctrine and valid morals.
I did not say that there were drastic differences. I stated that the translations are generally a bit different, but the stories and history of it are the same. It is internally dated from 165 A.D., like the copyright inside a book tells you when it was first printed.
Also, all of the Codex used to recreate the books of the New Testament are copies of the original writings. So to say that them being copied and recopied somehow degrades the quality would also go for all versions. I never meant "Word of God" literally, as I know better. I meant that the greek version, that was presided over and influenced by pontiffs and religious people (not the original writers mind you) is not close to the original intent because of almost intentional translations to what they wanted it to say, from what was originally written. That the current bible, is not even a good translation of the writers intent and stories.
Also, all of the Codex used to recreate the books of the New Testament are copies of the original writings. So to say that them being copied and recopied somehow degrades the quality would also go for all versions. I never meant "Word of God" literally, as I know better. I meant that the greek version, that was presided over and influenced by pontiffs and religious people (not the original writers mind you) is not close to the original intent because of almost intentional translations to what they wanted it to say, from what was originally written. That the current bible, is not even a good translation of the writers intent and stories.
Are we all talking about the same thing? The Septuagint was a Greek translation of the Hebrew text (precursor of the Masoric text) commissioned by Ptolemy II - son of Ptolemy I and Greek king of Egypt (after Alexander the Great conquered the world, and died at the early age of 33, his four top generals split the world into four pieces - Ptolemy took Egypt and set himself up in the fashion of the old Pharoahs, with the name Ptolemy I). Ptolemy II heard of the wonderful Hebrew scriptures and sent to Jerusalem requesting scholars to come teach the Jewish concepts to the Egyptians. 72 scholars, six from each Hebrew Tribe, went to Egypt and spent some 2-3 years translating the Hebrew text into Greek so the Greek-Egyptians could read it. Some of the scholars were intent on correct translations and some were less astute (since this was after all only for some Gentile King) thus some books are translated with greater accuracy than others. The greek suffix "sept" means 70 and is used because there were 70 (actually 72) translators.
The Septuagint is a translation from the Hebrew original, just like the KJV is a translation from the Hebrew original - and they both contain translation errors.
The Greek language became the dominate language for everyone in the Mediteranean world. When the Romans took over some three centuries later, they did not try to make everyone learn Latin since everyone in the(ir) world already spoke Greek, including them.
In Palestine, the Hebrew language slowly lost relevance until only the scholars used it regularly (Hebrew was still taught to little boys in the synagague just as it is today). When the Jews came back from Babylon after the captivity, they brought with them a mixture language, Aramaic, which became the dominant language of the region, even though everyone also learned to speak Greek after Alexander. The idea that only one language was spoken is truely an American stupidity (Americans may be the only people in the entire history of mankind - at least since Babel - who, as a whole, have only spoken one language).
Was the original bible written in Aramaic? No, the entire OT was written prior to the existence of Aramaic. Was the NT written in Aramaic? No. Paul (an educated Pharasee, who certainly spoke and wrote the dominant language of his time) wrote much of the NT and he wrote to Greek churches (Corinth, Phillipi, Galatia) who certainly would not have spoken Aramaic. What about the writings of Luke (who actually wrote more of the NT than anyone else, even though it is made up of only two books, Luke and Acts)? Luke was writing to his Greek friend Theophilus, so why would he write in Aramaic? Surely not the books which are rejected by the Aramaic Church - 2,3 John, Jude, Revelations (maybe a couple of others) for which there are not even any surviving Aramaic copies? Surely not Paul's letters to his Greek partners, Titus and Timothy. The only parts of the NT which might have originally be written in Aramaic (no actual evidence though) are the other three gospels and the book of Hebrews. Even these would be dubious since the authors would want the whole world to read the text in the common tongue, rather than in the regional language of the middle east, Aramaic.
The Greek Old Testament - Septuagint - had to be written three or more centuries prior to the Aramaic New Testament (Khaburis Manuscript which is an ancient copy of an even more ancient NT written in Aramaic).
The Septuagint is a translation from the Hebrew original, just like the KJV is a translation from the Hebrew original - and they both contain translation errors.
The Greek language became the dominate language for everyone in the Mediteranean world. When the Romans took over some three centuries later, they did not try to make everyone learn Latin since everyone in the(ir) world already spoke Greek, including them.
In Palestine, the Hebrew language slowly lost relevance until only the scholars used it regularly (Hebrew was still taught to little boys in the synagague just as it is today). When the Jews came back from Babylon after the captivity, they brought with them a mixture language, Aramaic, which became the dominant language of the region, even though everyone also learned to speak Greek after Alexander. The idea that only one language was spoken is truely an American stupidity (Americans may be the only people in the entire history of mankind - at least since Babel - who, as a whole, have only spoken one language).
Was the original bible written in Aramaic? No, the entire OT was written prior to the existence of Aramaic. Was the NT written in Aramaic? No. Paul (an educated Pharasee, who certainly spoke and wrote the dominant language of his time) wrote much of the NT and he wrote to Greek churches (Corinth, Phillipi, Galatia) who certainly would not have spoken Aramaic. What about the writings of Luke (who actually wrote more of the NT than anyone else, even though it is made up of only two books, Luke and Acts)? Luke was writing to his Greek friend Theophilus, so why would he write in Aramaic? Surely not the books which are rejected by the Aramaic Church - 2,3 John, Jude, Revelations (maybe a couple of others) for which there are not even any surviving Aramaic copies? Surely not Paul's letters to his Greek partners, Titus and Timothy. The only parts of the NT which might have originally be written in Aramaic (no actual evidence though) are the other three gospels and the book of Hebrews. Even these would be dubious since the authors would want the whole world to read the text in the common tongue, rather than in the regional language of the middle east, Aramaic.
The Greek Old Testament - Septuagint - had to be written three or more centuries prior to the Aramaic New Testament (Khaburis Manuscript which is an ancient copy of an even more ancient NT written in Aramaic).
Last edited: